Kevin Lyons recently dropped the case against ex-officer Troy Parker, who had been indicted on “three counts of reckless homicide and four counts of aggravated operating a watercraft under the influence of alcohol.” The prosecution only had circumstantial evidence that Parker was driving the boat, and the interpretation of that evidence was mixed. For more details, read Luciano’s column today.
The question of the day is, should Lyons have dropped the case, or should he have prosecuted Parker with the evidence he had?
Incidentally, Kevin Lyons was scheduled to speak at the Neighborhood Alliance meeting Monday night, but didn’t show up. States Attorney candidate Darin LaHood was there, though.
At least this guy is not on the police force anymore and the city does not owe him anything. If he stays on the path he is on his luck will soon run out.
Let it go. He’s not worth anyone’s attention and certainly not worth wasting money on…
The families of Damon Teverbaugh and Tammy Warnke might not agree with you, kcdad.
As much as I argued for a light/no sentence for those responsible for Danny Dalhquist’s death, and for the kid who pushed his buddy into traffic at University & Main, I feel different about this case.
It’s the weasely slimeball attitude of Mr. Parker who doesn’t appear to give a turd about human life that is turning my stomach. After all the time and money invested in this case, Kevin Lyons, who also believes he is guilty, should definitely have tried this case, even at the expense of his high conviction record during an election year.
As Spike Lee says “Do The Right Thing”
Even the police that know him believe he is a slimeball…. hmmm… he may be in more danger on the streets, but not to anyone but himself. I wouldn’t want to live in this city with the entire police force disgusted with me.
If the evidence was so weak he had to drop all charges, it would seem to me that 7 counts of that seriousness should not have been brought in the first place, or at least should not have gone this far, at great expense to the taxpayers. I also totally disagree with the decision to drop all charges against the guy who pushed the BU student to his death. I can’t believe he didn’t at least deserve some kind of reckless conduct charge.
“If he stays on the path he is on his luck will soon run out.”
But who else’s luck will run out too? Who will he possibly hit when he’s out driving (or boating?) drunk? Will it be my kids? You? I think he’s shown a reckless pattern of behaviour that’s not been restricted to self-destructive.
I think Kevin LYon’s is overly concerned with his record. I also think, though, that jury’s are much tougher now in the “Law and Order” and “CSI” age. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” has become “no doubt” in the mind of the public, making cases much harder to try.
I am not a Kevin Lyons fan, and I intend to vote for LaHood in November. Having said that, I completely agree with Lyon’s decision not to prosecute. In order to convict Parker, the state would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was driving the boat. We know from Phil’s column that the state would not be able to prove it. In fact, the State’s own expert would have to admit that Parker was not driving the boat. Since Lyons knows that he lacks evidence to prove something that he must prove in order to obtain a conviction, to go forward with the trial would be an abuse of his authority. I would not want to live in a jurisdiction were the prosecution would subject a person to a trial when he knows that he cannot convict. So, while I think Lyons should be replaced, its not because of how he handled this one.
dd — Except that Luciano’s column also said that the “bio-medical analysis” is not reliable:
I think that’s a pretty persuasive case. How does the “bio-medical analysis” account for the location of the blood? If it can’t account for it, then I think that proves the unreliability of it. The circumstantial evidence I think is enough to put it beyond a reasonable doubt that Parker was driving.
If the case is so flimsy, why does Lyons believe Parker is guilty? If the evidence is enough to convince the prosecutor, I don’t see why he doesn’t prosecute.
Remember I said that I am not a big Kevin Lyons fan? Kevin has a habit of trying cases in press, where he is not bound by the rules of evidence. The state’s attorney’s opinion about the guilt of the defendant is, for good reason, inadmissible in court. As to the “bio-medical analysis,” well the problem with “expert testimony” is that the “expert” has to give his opinion. Parker’s attorney would be able to show the jury that the state’s own expert “opined” that Parker was not the driver. Look, if both the defendant’s and the state’s expert agree that the defendant was not the driver, there is NO chance of conviction. To go forward with a trial in light of this agreement by the experts would, in my opinion, amount to an abuse of prosecutorial authority. I have to commend Mr. Lyons for seeing this. While I am NOT suggesting a strong degree of similarity between this case and the Duke rape case, that case illustrates what can happen when a prosecutor goes forward with a trial when he knows the evidence is against him. Read back on some of the discussion of that case and you see the problem that concerns me.
Because he has to convince a jury, not just himself. Also, if he comes across evidence later he can bring back the charges. If he prosecutes and loses he can’t ever do that even if Parker admits his guilt.
They only agree on the conclusions of the “bio-medical analysis,” not whether this method is foolproof or reliable. He would have to prove that the analysis is unreliable and point to the other circumstantial evidence, would he not? Or is the blood location, the testimony of the guy who saw him leaving, etc., all not admissible? Or are you just saying that it’s not persuasive?
Got to say I think Lyons made the right decision not to try the case, even though he believes that the guy is guilty. If the evidence won’t support it, he won’t get convicted. And I think that with both sides experts saying he wasn’t driving, that alone is enough to put reasonable doubt in the jurors minds.
We should at least give Lyons credit for getting the officer to resign. Otherwise, he might have been put back on the streets to “enforce” the laws.
There was a witness who not only saw Parker driving but helped him launch the boat because Parker was to intoxicated to do so.I believe he said Parker took off at full throttle and it was kept that way until he could no longer hear the boat.His and only his dna/blood was found on the seat steering wheel and under the drivers colume.When rescue got there he was standing in the middle of the boat saying I wasn’t driving,I wasn’t driving.Which is the same thing he said the last time he was drunk and crashed his suv.Teverbaugh was with him at that crash also.Some of the comments made to the PJS suggested Tammy Warnke or Teverbaugh were driving.I have been in the family boat with Tammy for years and I have never seen her drive.Integrity is not in Parkers vocabulary or his concience.He took a live by accident,but reckless all the same.Tammy’s life is one of misery and pain,now with seizures added to the mix.Teverbaughs family is probably still in tears.Real people whose only mistake was trying to have some fun.Parker gave them death and misery.His silence says it all!
I’m not saying you guys aren’t right — dropping the case may very well have been the best thing to do. I’m saying I don’t understand why that is. Seriously. After reading Luciano’s article, I don’t understand why the case was not persuasive enough. Is it that some or all of what was in the article was inadmissible? Or just that it’s not persuasive? It seems like it was a good case, despite this particular reconstruction not going in the prosecution’s favor. It seems like they could concede that that particular analysis couldn’t prove that Parker was the driver, but they weren’t starting with a clean crime scene. So because the medical personnel moved some stuff around on the boat, Parker gets to go free? I just don’t get it. Break it down for me.
After reading further evidence on WEEK’s site, I retract my previous questions. I concur the state would have likely lost their case. Lyons should have dropped it, and I’m glad that Parker is off the force nevertheless.